Ever hear a christian say something so stupid.(Horror stories here)

[pocaracas]

LOL really?

I think I should start saying I'm an atheist more, seems like I've missed a lot of fun reactions by saying "I don't believe".

You often times get a much different reaction to saying the actual word "atheist" than you do to other variations like non believer, etc. People seem to have a much more visceral reaction to that particular label.

hmmmm... I should start using it more often, then!

[Raeven]

A beloved family member recently returned to her Catholic upbringing, so she is suddenly very concerned about my atheism. One day we were having a cordial discussion about it, and I asked if she was one who felt that the Ten Commandments should be made the law of the land here in the USA. She immediately responded in the affirmative.

I said, "So you think someone like me, who has no belief in any god whatsoever, should be made an automatic criminal from a law that says, 'I am the Lord your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve,' then? Just owing to my state of being?"

"I don't think that's one of the Commandments," she replied.

<pindrop>

[Esquilax]

"You're just an atheist because you hate god, and that's why you don't believe in him!"

Yes. Seriously.

It was another student in one of my old philosophy classes that said it, and I actually had to confirm he was serious before I responded. I ended up just scolding him for reinterpreting my motivations rather than arguing the point. Luckily, the instructor gave a shit about argumentation, and the discussion turned to the actual debate itself, and... well, I'm sure you can all predict the quality of the points made by a person who thinks the above quote is compelling.

[Tonus]

"Don't atheists follow Satan" makes sense to a Christian. Since they believe that Satan seeks to separate humanity from god, then anyone who rejects god is doing Satan's will. In the mind of the Christian, the atheist is doing exactly what Satan wants, and is therefore following the Devil. That the atheist doesn't believe in Satan either is of no consequence.

You could always respond with "don't theists follow nonsense?"

[Raeven]

"Don't atheists follow Satan" makes sense to a Christian. Since they believe that Satan seeks to separate humanity from god, then anyone who rejects god is doing Satan's will. In the mind of the Christian, the atheist is doing exactly what Satan wants, and is therefore following the Devil. That the atheist doesn't believe in Satan either is of no consequence.

You could always respond with "don't theists follow nonsense?"

You know, that was one of the most astonishing things I learned from former theists with whom I am friends. As a life-long non-believer, the notion that theists view atheism as a REJECTION of their god rather than simple non-belief was not something I appreciated. The concept seems so simple to me, I just couldn't see how someone might NOT being able to imagine it. It has given me significant insight into why they are so afraid of my non-belief.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A beloved family member recently returned to her Catholic upbringing, so she is suddenly very concerned about my atheism. One day we were having a cordial discussion about it, and I asked if she was one who felt that the Ten Commandments should be made the law of the land here in the USA. She immediately responded in the affirmative.

I said, "So you think someone like me, who has no belief in any god whatsoever, should be made an automatic criminal from a law that says, 'I am the Lord your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve,' then? Just owing to my state of being?"

"I don't think that's one of the Commandments," she replied.

Side note: I read a poll recently that some 40% of regular US church-goers (church goers who responded to the poll, anyway) think that 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is one of the Ten Commandments.

I can't prove it, but I doubt very much that this sort of ignorance is confined to USians.

Boru

[Ryantology]

YOU JUST HATE GOD THAT'S WHY YOU WON'T ACCEPT MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE AS OBJECTIVE FACT

-pretty much every Christian on this board at one point or another

[Angrboda]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism1.htm

HINDU INVOCATION IN CONGRESS

---

The Hindu prayer:

On 2000-SEP-14, A Hindu priest, Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala of the Shiva Vishnu Hindu Temple in Parma, OH, opened a session of the U.S. House of Representatives with a prayer. He was the first Hindu to do so. Representative Sherrod Brown, (D- OH) had invited Mr. Samuldrala as a guest chaplain, said: "Today is a great day for Indian-American relations. India and the United States share the bonds of history and culture. I requested the House Chaplain invite Mr. Samuldrala to give today's prayer as a testimony to the religious diversity that is the hallmark of our nation. Mr. Salmuldrala's prayer reminds us that while we may differ in culture and traditions, we are alike in the basic aspiration for peace and righteousness."

---

Initial response by the Family Research Council:

Robert E. Regier and Timothy J. Dailey wrote an essay about the prayer. It appeared on SEP-21 in the Culture Facts section of the Family Research Council's web site. It was also Emailed or mailed to the subscribers of Culture Facts, a weekly newsletter. The FRC is a Washington DC-based, Fundamentalist Christian agency. It was spun-off from the Colorado Springs CO-based Focus on the Family many years ago. According to a Fax received from the FRC Legal Studies section, this essay "failed to go though [sic] our full editing process, which would have removed any statements inconsistant [sic] with FRC's [official] position."

The essay was part of a "Q&A" section labeled "Religious Pluralism or Tolerance?" It included a question from a member of the public:

"A Hindu priest was recently invited to give the opening invocation it the House of Representative. What's wrong with this?"

Regier and Dailey's answer was, in part:

"What's wrong is that it is one more indication that our nation is drifting from its Judeo-Christian roots...Alas, in our day, when 'tolerance' and 'diversity' have replaced the 10 Commandments as the only remaining absolute dictums, it has become necessary to 'celebrate' non-Christian religions — even in the halls of Congress ... Our founders expected that Christianity — and no other religion — would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate people's consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.

Many people today confuse traditional Western religious tolerance with religious pluralism. The former embraces biblical truth while allowing for freedom of conscience, while the latter assumes all religions are equally valid, resulting in moral relativism and ethical chaos..."

---

---

According to Maranatha Christian Journal, "media criticism" triggered a FRC clairification. According to a private Fax from the FRC, they "were aware of only one small Associate [sic] Press article, which was not particularly critical. The 'Q&A' article was removed and the correction issued because it incorrectly stated one of our fundamental policy positions."

FRC's Executive Vice President, Chuck Donovan, responded on SEP-22 with a press release containing a clarification. He said: "It is the position of the Family Research Council that governments must respect freedom of conscience for all people in religious matters ... We affirm the truth of Christianity, but it is not our position that American's Constitution forbids representatives of religions other than Christianity from praying before Congress...." He concluded with a concern about attempts to remove religion from public life. He pointed out FRC's support for U.S. religious freedom legislation. He deplored anti-Christian persecution around the world.

[Lemonvariable72]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism1.htm

HINDU INVOCATION IN CONGRESS

---

The Hindu prayer:

On 2000-SEP-14, A Hindu priest, Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala of the Shiva Vishnu Hindu Temple in Parma, OH, opened a session of the U.S. House of Representatives with a prayer. He was the first Hindu to do so. Representative Sherrod Brown, (D- OH) had invited Mr. Samuldrala as a guest chaplain, said: "Today is a great day for Indian-American relations. India and the United States share the bonds of history and culture. I requested the House Chaplain invite Mr. Samuldrala to give today's prayer as a testimony to the religious diversity that is the hallmark of our nation. Mr. Salmuldrala's prayer reminds us that while we may differ in culture and traditions, we are alike in the basic aspiration for peace and righteousness."

---

Initial response by the Family Research Council:

Robert E. Regier and Timothy J. Dailey wrote an essay about the prayer. It appeared on SEP-21 in the Culture Facts section of the Family Research Council's web site. It was also Emailed or mailed to the subscribers of Culture Facts, a weekly newsletter. The FRC is a Washington DC-based, Fundamentalist Christian agency. It was spun-off from the Colorado Springs CO-based Focus on the Family many years ago. According to a Fax received from the FRC Legal Studies section, this essay "failed to go though [sic] our full editing process, which would have removed any statements inconsistant [sic] with FRC's [official] position."

The essay was part of a "Q&A" section labeled "Religious Pluralism or Tolerance?" It included a question from a member of the public:

"A Hindu priest was recently invited to give the opening invocation it the House of Representative. What's wrong with this?"

Regier and Dailey's answer was, in part:

"What's wrong is that it is one more indication that our nation is drifting from its Judeo-Christian roots...Alas, in our day, when 'tolerance' and 'diversity' have replaced the 10 Commandments as the only remaining absolute dictums, it has become necessary to 'celebrate' non-Christian religions — even in the halls of Congress ... Our founders expected that Christianity — and no other religion — would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate people's consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.

Many people today confuse traditional Western religious tolerance with religious pluralism. The former embraces biblical truth while allowing for freedom of conscience, while the latter assumes all religions are equally valid, resulting in moral relativism and ethical chaos..."

---

---

According to Maranatha Christian Journal, "media criticism" triggered a FRC clairification. According to a private Fax from the FRC, they "were aware of only one small Associate [sic] Press article, which was not particularly critical. The 'Q&A' article was removed and the correction issued because it incorrectly stated one of our fundamental policy positions."

FRC's Executive Vice President, Chuck Donovan, responded on SEP-22 with a press release containing a clarification. He said: "It is the position of the Family Research Council that governments must respect freedom of conscience for all people in religious matters ... We affirm the truth of Christianity, but it is not our position that American's Constitution forbids representatives of religions other than Christianity from praying before Congress...." He concluded with a concern about attempts to remove religion from public life. He pointed out FRC's support for U.S. religious freedom legislation. He deplored anti-Christian persecution around the world.

*lemonvariable72
Bangs head off of the wall

[Esquilax]

And isn't it funny how "Judeo-Christian roots" always seem to conform most closely with the particular religious views of the person throwing around the term?